Appeal No. 1998-2927 Page 10
Application No. 07/584,667
many segments as there are compartments. We find this
argument to be unpersuasive for the following reasons. First,
we agree with the examiner's finding that the claimed "flat
holder" is readable on the sponge-shaft B of Prentis because
the sponge-shaft B holds the two sponges and includes a
relatively broad surface in relation to its thickness (i.e.,
flat). Second, the moistening member of Prentis is divided
into two sponges (i.e., segments), one for each compartment.
Thus, we reach the conclusion that the limitations of claim 4
regarding the mounting of a moistening member on a flat
holder, with the moistening member being divided into as many
segments as there are compartments, is met by Prentis.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and
103(a) is affirmed.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 1 to 4 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 103(a) is
affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007